A surge of illegal homemade machine guns has helped fuel gun violence in the US
A surge of illegal homemade machine guns has helped fuel gun violence in the US
In the last several years, a proliferation of tiny pieces of plastic and metal is fueling a spike in semi-automatic handguns converted to fully automatic fire.
Communities around the U.S. have seen shootings carried out with weapons converted to fully automatic in recent years, fueled by a staggering increase in small pieces of metal or plastic made with a 3D printer or ordered online. Laws against machine guns date back to the bloody violence of Prohibition-era gangsters. But the proliferation of devices known by nicknames such as Glock switches, auto sears and chips has allowed people to transform legal semi-automatic weapons into even more dangerous guns, helping fuel gun violence, police and federal authorities said.
The (ATF) reported a 570% increase in the number of conversion devices collected by police departments between 2017 and 2021, the most recent data available.
The devices that can convert legal semi-automatic weapons can be made on a 3D printer in about 35 minutes or ordered from overseas online for less than $30. They’re also quick to install.
“It takes two or three seconds to put in some of these devices into a firearm to make that firearm into a machine gun instantly,” Dettelbach said.
You're viewing a single thread.
gun thread, lemme hit you with some easy unsourced stats real quick.
About a third of all people who attempt suicide will never attempt it again, about a third will attempt it pretty repetitively, and about a third fall somewhere in the middle, where they engage in multiple attempts, but stop after the 5th or whatever. This is to say that suicide is mostly a spur of the moment decision and most people who attempt suicide aren't completely committed to it as a course of action. It's mostly a decision that's made as a result of being kind of fed up and believing you have no other options in your life, it's not a conscientious, committed kind of philosophical position, most of the time. I think there's some sort of minor study about a bridge in, I wanna say canada, where they set up a net underneath one bridge, and another bridge about 20 minutes away didn't have a net set up underneath it. Still, the suicides went down by about the amount you would expect to see, had you just eliminated all the suicides taking place on the bridge with the net. The people committing suicide weren't willing to drive about 20 minutes to dive off of a different bridge, it was just something they sort of did in the moment.
So, that's all a pretty good indication that limiting gun access to the suicidal would be a relatively helpful thing to do. The most counterargument I've heard against this is that, regardless of that, we should still have free access to guns, and they shouldn't be regulated by the government, because our right to guns trumps everyone else's right to not be successful in killing themselves. I don't think I need to tell you that this is a kind of disgusting viewpoint.
I think we can also probably say that the same would be true of gun crime broadly. There are multiple factors going into gun crime, like housing prices, redlining, drug trafficking, mental illness, sure. One of these factors is also guns. Taking away any of these factors, including guns, not just lead to a reduction in gun crime, but would probably lead to a reduction in crime overall. A reduction in crime overall with no substitution in the form of increased knife violence or other forms of violence or crime.
It's much harder to secure your illegally owned high value property, in drugs, if it is more expensive and harder to access a gun. If it's more expensive, that eats into your profit margins. This alone would probably cut down on violent gun crime, and drug related violent crime more broadly.
I also feel like I'm taking crazy pills whenever people talk about how if you limited access to guns, people would just switch over to knives, and knives would be equally as effective. No they wouldn't! You have to be extremely fit and trained properly to wield a knife effectively, and even then, two or three people can easily overwhelm you and jump on top of you. People can more easily outrun you. If you wanted to try and make the leap from one technology to the other, I would think people would compare guns more to IEDs, since there's obviously more of a similarity there in terms of effectiveness, but obviously it's much harder to secure your drugs with IEDs, or to rob someone with a pipe bomb.
The most compelling argument against gun regulations, and especially more extreme gun regulations, is that it's really hard to get them passed, and especially at the federal level, which is what would really cut down on their trafficking. You also have a problem with law enforcement, since most law enforcement, and probably federal law enforcement, wouldn't really be willing or effective in stripping americans of most of their guns. You'd probably see more success with something like limiting ammunition sales or gun manufacturing, but you'd obviously expect to get lobbied against pretty hard, and, at least if you were to limit gun manufacturing, you'd only expect to see results on that maybe 10+ years down the line, in decades, and, depending on how that was passed, you might just see it get repealed before you could see anything from it.
Of course, the caveat with all of that is that most americans are actually perfectly willing to conform to, and vote for, reasonable restrictions on guns. This includes universal background checks, mental health checks, wait periods, obviously limiting things like automatic capabilities and magazine size (though to what extent this limits unlawful use, I'm not quite sure). Probably at the farther end I'd guess americans might vote for requiring licensing from gun owners, and secure handling and transportation, like most european countries, which might limit unlawful use by limiting theft.
I think also lots of gun owners are straight delulu when it comes to how effective their gun might be. They come up with lots of little hypotheticals and heuristics to try and train for, but in a gunfight, it is usually the person who shoots first who wins, the person who has the element of surprise. If you're getting robbed at gunpoint, you've already lost. You almost have to wield your gun like a lunatic, brandishing it at people for intimidation, in order for it to be an effective form of self-defense (this is illegal in most places). There's also the idea that open carry can prevent crime, but that it might also mark you as an easier, higher priority target, so I'm kind of skeptical of it. Maybe it's better for home invasions or something, but that's not a particularly high likelihood anyways, and you have problems with wall penetration and such. Most home robbers are going to want to hit your place when you're not in it anyways.
I'm a gun owner who carries a firearm. I think different people and areas have different needs.
There are no children in my household, fist off. If there were I wouldn't have guns and ammo in the same house. It's just not safe. If a child comes to my house, the ammo goes to the car.
But I live over 30 minutes from the nearest police station. We have firearms for defense from predators, invasive animals (e.g. hogs), etc.. Yeah, they could be used against people, but that's not really something we're worried about. We don't even lock our doors.
That being said, I do carry in town. I also have a spare set of clothing, full set of mechanics tools, a fire extinguisher, first aid kit, and an AED in the van. I like to be prepared wherever I go, and other than the AED all of those tools have come in handy in an emergency.
I don't like going into details about the time I had to pull my gun because I hate how right-wing nut jobs seem to celebrate the fact that I needed one as justification for all the other hateful things they do. Suffice to say I was being assaulted and the gun ended the situation without me having to shoot the assailant.
Yeah - I don't carry the toolbox or fire exringuisher my body, but a handgun is almost never necessary in a few minutes. And of course if someone breaks into my van and steals my impact wrench it's annoying. If they steal a gun that's much more serious.
I think we have some major work to do to cut back on violence, and some gun reforms are part of the answer. The things that I think would have a lot of impact on gun crime with minimal impact on lawful gun ownership are improving NICS and opening it up for civilian use. Right now if I want to sell a gun to a friend or relative I can't run a check to see if they're legally allowed to own one. This would also be the first step towards universal background checks.
But background checks aren't enough. There need to be record-keeping laws for individual sales that are no different than those from a dealer. The idea is kill straw purchases while improving traceability, which is the biggest issue we have with the current system.
What we have now is half of a brilliant compromise. A federal gun registry is a red line that gun owners will not cross. It's the most important necessary precursor to mass firearm confiscation, and it's a hard no. The fight over that is why it took so damn long to get background checks in the first place.
But we want to be able to trace guns used in crimes, so we require manufacturers and dealers to track the sales. If a gun is used in a crime, law enforcement can get a warrant and go to the manufacturer who can look it up and point them to the distributor who can point them to the retailer who can point them to the buyer. It's a system that allows any specific gun to be tracked, while preventing the government from having a registry.
The problem is that record ends at the first sale. The buyer can sell, trade, or gift that gun without a background check and without keeping a record. It's the major way that guns illegal in a given state get there.
It also eliminates the "gun show loophole" which is a very misleading name, since it's actually just a "private sale loophole." Licensed dealers are still required to do a background check and 4473 for gun show sales.
Waiting periods don't do much. Someone wanting to commit suicide can rent a gun at the range more easily, and it happens more than you think. The federal waiting period from the 80s was simply a placeholder until NICS got up and running that gave more time for background checks.
One issue that needs resolving is NICS needs to finish background checks. There are 3 standard results when running a background check: Approve, Deny, and Delay. Approve and Deny are self-explanatory. Delays occur when there's a partial match. Since NICS just uses 3 items (name, date of birth, and state of birth) for the check partial matches can occur, especially if the buyer has a common name - it's especially common with Hispanic last names since there's a lot of Raul Hernandezes out there.
When there's a delay, the gun can be sold without a response in 3 days, though more and more stores are instituting a policy that it needs an approval before the sale. This is because most Denys are initially a Delay, and sometimes (rarely) it takes a week.
But the rub is half the time NICS simply doesn't follow up on a Delay, or they do it in 6 weeks. Any firearm transaction must be finished within 30 days of the initial background check, so if they take 6 weeks a new background check has to be started. I had a friend named David Jones who couldn't purchase a gun from lots of dealers because NICS always took longer than 30 days to respond.
And finally the biggest issue with NICS - Identity Verification. NICS needs to be able to verify that a person exists. Right now a fake or mispelled name (whether the misspelling is in the database or on the 4473) will work 100% of the time since all it checks against is a blacklist. A $50 fake ID shouldn't allow someone to buy a gun.
Totally correct and a pretty good solution, I wish more gun owners were as responsible as you sound, and I wish we could take more steps towards a reality in which they are. Realistically, I don't really want to eliminate guns altogether, I like guns perfectly fine, they're great plinking devices, they're great for controlling the populations of invasive species, they're mechanically, and sometimes historically, fascinating devices. What I prefer more is just a world in which those are the roles that guns take, rather than guns having like, such a fucked up pretense of reality, a pretense of utility, in self-defense. Rather than being an economic engine of political fearmongering. Mostly, I find this type of shit to be incredibly annoying, because my small town is constantly flooded with people who wholeheartedly believe the militarized self-defense chaff around this stuff, but have also never been to any large city in america, and are totally incurious about what the root causes of crime might be. Their concern for the world stops at the end of their fingertips, anything out of reach for them. Anything that doesn't directly intersect or connect to them, is something they don't give a shit about at all. It's myopic, it's selfish, it's a mentality that is not conducive to a good society, much less, a society at all. That's it, that's my little spiel on that.
I didn't think much about gun rentals at ranges, that's a pretty good point. It is still probably the case that waiting periods, I suspect, would cut down on suicides for the same reason I stated previously, right, making guns harder to access for the suicidal will cut down on, not necessarily even suicide attempts, but suicide lethality. Being able to walk into any walmart in the 40's and blow your brains out with a shotgun for probably less than 20 bucks is kind of, a very convenient method of suicide. It's like the suicide booth from futurama, almost. Still, the point is taken well, and it's probably a better point for more stringent precautions at rental ranges to prevent such outcomes. I don't really know what those would end up looking like. I'd imagine a lot of those generally would end up falling into the middle and latter categories anyways, of suicide, and I would assume they'd be more due to things like ptsd and stuff like that.
I'd also imagine a lot of that is just from NICS being kind of an underfunded thing, but a more thoroughly automated and more publicly accessible database would be a pretty good solution to that, I would think. I'd also think that, more than being totally publicly accessible, it would probably need to be accessible more to local law enforcement and local government, and maybe between private parties if it were verified by credentials, more for protection of personal privacy. Sort of in the same way that buying a used car works out, in lots of states. God damn if that isn't super inconvenient when you buy a car from the 1970's with the original title, though. Certainly there's quite a lot of room for improvement with NICS, but yeah, it's very hard to kind of, push in any direction, in that respect, because it's hard to move away from the propaganda about whatever you might pass being a violation of personal freedom and privacy and yadda yadda ya.
A lot of ranges now have a rule that non-members cannot rent a gun unless they are with someone else or brought a gun of their own specifically because of suicides.
My local range still had an incident where a guy brought his new neighbor to the range for some "guy bonding" just so he could shoot himself. Someone who puts that much effort into it is probably pretty committed, but also fuck him for using his neighbor like that and putting everyone at the range through the trauma of someone shooting themselves in the head. Dude survived, though.
As for privacy, I think there's a solution. Someone should be able to run a background check on themselves in NICS and when it's approved it can generate a kind of "redemption" code that they can share with others for 30 days (the maximum time a NICS check is good for). Then the seller can run that code and name in combination to verify they're an approved buyer.
It's like 2FA for background checks.
What frustrates me endlessly is that so many people who understand the industry refuse to acknowledge its dangers, while so many of the most powerful anti-gun people simply don't know anything about the firearms they're trying to regulate. So we end up with either nothing changing at all, or idiotic laws that are actively harmful.
In California, all newly-designed handguns are required to have a feature that literally doesn't exist. The guns are supposed to stamp their serial numbers on the primers. No new gun has been added to the California approved handgun list in over a decade because if it, which is why some guns that have been redesigned to improve safety and prevent accidental discharge are illegal, where the old pistols that may fire when rattled are still being sold new.
New Jersey had a law mandating that once a major gun manufacturer released a handgun that had electronic smart features to prevent unauthorized people from firing the gun that any gun without that feature would be illegal to sell. So, New Jersey basically prevented those guns from being developed by telling manufacturers their sales would tank on every other model if they ever tried.
On the other side, Texas started permitless carry. I live in Texas and that shit is idiotic. I keep my handgun license current because people should be trained if they're gonna carry. When I took my first LCH class, there was a woman who couldn't hit the silhouette target frame (2'x4') at 3 yards. She obviously failed the test, but now she's allowed to carry without a license. That's incredibly stupid.
So... What's your plan for any of those scenarios where someone wants more than just to run off with your phone/wallet/car?
(Keeping in mind the that cops have zero obligation to stop a crime in progress if there's any potential risk to them, leading to scenarios like this: https://youtu.be/jAfUI_hETy0 )
Edit: to be clear I'm NOT denying any of what you said, just want to know "and then what" from a person who so passionately tries to convince others that the idea of armed self defense is wrong and not worth considering.
I'm not the person you're replying to, but: there are defense tools that are simultaneously less lethal than firearms, while actually more effective than firearms for self defense.
Elaborate, please.
There are lots of situations where fire arms aren't good for defense.
They need to be aimed.
They need to be loaded.
They are not allowed in some places/They have specific transportation requirements which preclude them from bring brought to some places.
They can kill/ grievously wound uninvolved people.
They aren't effective for summoning help.
Someone wielding one in self defense can be reasonably misidentified as an aggressor.
Not every defence device has these deficiencies.
Can you name viable alternatives, and what's your personal plan?
Copying my reply to someone else because much of it is relevant here too.
I didn't mean to suggest that there was something without any of those drawbacks, so I'm sorry if I wasn't clear about that.
I'm not going to propose a one size fits all solution.
But I think people should consider the situations they are most likely to find themselves in, and make considered decisions.
I don't think guns are likely to be the best choice very often.
I'm not that interested in discussing what I do personally for safety, because every situation is unique.
My question is for someone passionately arguing against keeping a gun for self defense, with the implication being it's law, and so regardless of training and care and personal circumstances.
The pro-gun crowd doesn't just blanket recommend guns for everyone in every situation either, so my question is specifically about how those worst case defensive scenarios are envisioned by people who eschew the idea of personally owning guns.
I live in Canada, it's illegal in Canada to carry anything outside your home for the purposes of defense against humans. (But if you have something with you for a different reason you're allowed to use it). This makes my personal preparations somewhat irrelevant to Americans.
My question is for someone passionately arguing against keeping a gun for self defense, with the implication being it's law, and so regardless of training and care and personal circumstances.
That's not really me. However, I do think that guns aren't a very good defense investment. I think a lot of other, more practical, preparations get overlooked because guns are fun.
I have a colleague that lives in Buffalo NY. When the pandemic hit, he and his wife bought 10 guns. When I spoke with him in 2023 they had never fired any of them.
The pro-gun crowd doesn't just blanket recommend guns for everyone in every situation either, so my question is specifically about how those worst case defensive scenarios are envisioned by people who eschew the idea of personally owning guns.
What you're saying about blanket recommendations is not really true. My boss, a real actual person that I respect (for other reasons), believes that every adult in the country ought to own a gun.
But again, I'm not who you're looking to engage, I'm not opposed to the idea of personally owning a gun.
Not every defence device has these deficiencies.
So which do you propose?
Pepper spray can deal permanent damage to one's sight and sense of smell, and affects everyone nearby.
A shocker can kill a person with heart problems.
A traumatic pistol may just not be enough, it's like a device to punch a person in effect.
A knife requires training and won't help against a stronger attacker likely.
I didn't mean to suggest that there was something without any of those drawbacks, so I'm sorry if I wasn't clear about that.
I'm not going to propose a one size fits all solution.
But I think people should consider the situations they are most likely to find themselves in, and make considered decisions.
I don't think guns are likely to be the best choice very often.
Probably not shoot them in the back, I'd imagine? If I hit them, then that's some poor fucker who might be dead cause of me, and if they're robbing me I'd expect them to not have medical coverage so secondary effects might also fuck them over even harder. It's easier for me to just take the L on my phone, wallet, or, I guess car? But I'm kinda not seeing carjacking that I might notice as much. In any case, it's easier for me to just use my car insurance, if they happen to destroy my car or it becomes unrecoverable, goes to a chop shop, what have you, it's easier for me to get a new government ID, and freeze my credit card and get a new one, and buy a new cheap-ass phone. And maybe be out the 20 bucks in my wallet, which is why you shouldn't carry large amounts of cash.
It's much easier for me to just, confront the problem through these secondary inconveniences that it causes me, rather than trying to like, "pull a hero", and shoot someone in the back. I'm not particularly educated on the intricacies of state-by-state self defense law, either, right, but I also wouldn't be surprised if it was unjustified to shoot someone in the back.
I'm also not totally unconvinced of the idea of armed self-defense, right, it can be totally viable in certain situations.
Say, someone is robbing a store with a gun, and their attention is on the cashier, and not on you, or, say, you're outside, right. Now you're totally free to pull your firearm and engage your off-duty brazilian police officer fantasy, for sure. That's, debatably, a useful scenario for a gun. Maybe a more useful scenario might be an in-progress rape, or assault, or something to that effect, though I'd imagine that most gun owners would not be proficient enough with their weapon to cleanly hit one person wrestling or engaged with another person at any more significant distance, and maybe at close distances depending on the shooter and how engaged the two people are. That's on the shooter, though, that's why regular training is necessary (even better if it's baked in as a requirement of ownership, as I said). I think in these cases it's probably somewhat likely that even the presence of the gun itself could serve to dissuade further engagement, which is a valuable function for it to serve beyond shooting.
So basically, for property crime, it's easier to just deal with the property crime as it has occurred, since usually nobody's been hurt. With interpersonal violent crime, it's still a very highly contextually dependent solution, rather than a kind of, one-size-fits-all solution that everyone makes it out to be.
I would say, if people are super concerned about self-defense, they'd probably want to take some first aid classes, they'd probably want good cardio, they'd probably want to carry pepper spray and maybe more easily know where medical supplies are located, or otherwise have some easily accessible to them within about a minute. They also might want to take some sort of martial arts class, which might also be good for their cardio, and good for fitness in general. Knives are not a good idea, since they remain dangerous and unpredictable, even with training, and guns aren't all that useful in a grappling scenario (and could also potentially injure you), or when you've not seen them coming. I could be persuaded on the position of a taser.
I'm also not going to discount the idea that someone might get a gun and still brandish it as a form of intimidation, illegally, in order to accomplish other goals, right, the law isn't, total morality, it's just not a good idea to do for the vast majority of people. I think the black panthers standing outside the california state capitol is an effective form of protest, and is especially effective given their smaller numbers. It's more efficient, in some ways, than a mass march.
I can also imagine scenarios where people live in circumstances where the police and law won't help them (lots of people), and would probably find it necessary to stay strapped up, if for nothing else than the fact that it's kind of just another minor tool at their disposal. I dunno, there's maybe something to be said there of possession of a gun, again, marking you as a threat, not only to criminals, but to police, but I've also seen lots of body cam footage where police just shoot a guy regardless. Because of an acorn, maybe. So, I'm not sure it matters too much.
Basically my problem with guns is that they rely too much on the ability of the end user to correctly discern the situation at hand before they begin to use them. Oh, is this person about to stab me, pull a gun on me, whatever? It's usually pretty much impossible to know. If it's impossible to know, it's usually not a good idea to pull a gun on someone, and it's usually a much, much worse idea to shoot someone. You've just shortcutted the logical chain of events, there, right? Like the guy in the video says, there are plenty of instances where crazy drugged up homeless people on the new york subway walk around screaming obscenities, even saying stuff like "you're going to die", and shit like that, and they never do anything at all. Certainly, me personally, I find it to be a more moral position, getting stabbed to death, or getting hospitalized and treated by my shitty medical provider, rather than choke, maybe more probably, strangle, someone to death, because they were making a ruckus.